Report condemns NFL for attempting to influence brain injury study

[YosemiteSam]

Report condemns NFL for attempting to influence brain injury study

 

[Miller]

Report condemns NFL for attempting to influence brain injury study

See below. Still no takers

 

[erod]

Science isn't science anymore.

The NFL is wrong to try to manipulate the study, but by the same token, the NFL knows the study won't be conducted in a scientific manner. These days, such studies are always highly politically motivated.

Man-made global warming has to be true, or the research grants (and celebrity) dry up. Same with this. CTE study promises to be a highly lucrative and high-profile for those that win the grants to conduct it. To not find damaging evidence simply will not do if you want the cash to keep flowing.

It's sad. So much meaningful knowledge and progress is prevented as a result.

 

[visionary]

Shocker
In other news, water is wet

 

[Hoofbite]

Science isn't science anymore.

The NFL is wrong to try to manipulate the study, but by the same token, the NFL knows the study won't be conducted in a scientific manner. These days, such studies are always highly politically motivated.

Man-made global warming has to be true, or the research grants (and celebrity) dry up. Same with this. CTE study promises to be a highly lucrative and high-profile for those that win the grants to conduct it. To not find damaging evidence simply will not do if you want the cash to keep flowing.

It's sad. So much meaningful knowledge and progress is prevented as a result.

If only there was a huge worldwide industry that had the money to spend on honest research. At least then we would know the truth about climate change. If only there was a large, multi-billion dollar enterprise that had the money to spend on honest research. At least then we'd know the truth regarding football and CTE.

Little close to wearing a tin foil hat aren't we? Money can influence scientific research but, apparently, only in one particular direction. Nobody is interested in honest research, science isn't science, results are bought, and all the funding available is pushing a single agenda regardless of who is paying for the research. The NFL couldn't buy their own findings? Wealthy interests couldn't pay for results that disconnect climate change from human activity?

The NFL knows that there's nothing to gain by arriving any any possible general agreement on the matter any sooner than it would have naturally occurred on it's own. If the link doesn't exist, they gain nothing. If the link exists, they stand to lose a hell of a lot.

 

[erod]

If only there was a huge worldwide industry that had the money to spend on honest research. At least then we would know the truth about climate change. If only there was a large, multi-billion dollar enterprise that had the money to spend on honest research. At least then we'd know the truth regarding football and CTE.

Little close to wearing a tin foil hat aren't we? Money can influence scientific research but, apparently, only in one particular direction. Nobody is interested in honest research, science isn't science, results are bought, and all the funding available is pushing a single agenda regardless of who is paying for the research. The NFL couldn't buy their own findings? Wealthy interests couldn't pay for results that disconnect climate change from human activity?

The NFL knows that there's nothing to gain by arriving any any possible general agreement on the matter any sooner than it would have naturally occurred on it's own. If the link doesn't exist, they gain nothing. If the link exists, they stand to lose a hell of a lot.

The results are already getting stilted politically.

Frank Gifford was shown to have CTE. The man lived well into his 80s, had a massively successful career after football, and yet he "suffered" from CTE?

You know Troy Aikman has it after all his concussions, right? And yet, he is as lucid and successful as he can possibly be right now.

Jim McMahon has serious issues, and it's being blamed on probabl CTE. Never mind the massive amounts of recreational drugs he took, not to mention whatever PEDs he might have been on. Has to be the CTE.

Junior Seau killed himself because of CTE, right? Never mind that he was a steroid machine for most of his life. Has to be CTE.

Objective minds aren't in charge of this. That's my issue with it. The narrative has been established, and dang it, we're not going to consider veering from that direction.

 

[Hoofbite]

The results are already getting stilted politically.

Frank Gifford was shown to have CTE. The man lived well into his 80s, had a massively successful career after football, and yet he "suffered" from CTE?

You know Troy Aikman has it after all his concussions, right? And yet, he is as lucid and successful as he can possibly be right now.

Well, hard to argue against that. After all, if Frank Gifford or Troy Aikman (presumably) never had, or currently have, any complications then there simply isn't a link.

Jim McMahon has serious issues, and it's being blamed on probabl CTE. Never mind the massive amounts of recreational drugs he took, not to mention whatever PEDs he might have been on. Has to be the CTE.

Junior Seau killed himself because of CTE, right? Never mind that he was a steroid machine for most of his life. Has to be CTE.

Objective minds aren't in charge of this. That's my issue with it. The narrative has been established, and dang it, we're not going to consider veering from that direction.

How so? Because they are less inclined to attribute the increased risk of CTE found in NFL players to anything and everything but repetitive head injury?

Just a thought, but what if researchers have looked at a variety of suspected causes or have established baseline incidence rates from samples of the general population and they're are still unable to account for the increased risk of CTE amongst NFL players? What would you suggest they do? Study the aspects they can account for, or study those which they cannot?

 

[erod]

Well, hard to argue against that. After all, if Frank Gifford or Troy Aikman (presumably) never had, or currently have, any complications then there simply isn't a link.



How so? Because they are less inclined to attribute the increased risk of CTE found in NFL players to anything and everything but repetitive head injury?

Just a thought, but what if researchers have looked at a variety of suspected causes or have established baseline incidence rates from samples of the general population and they're are still unable to account for the increased risk of CTE amongst NFL players? What would you suggest they do? Study the aspects they can account for, or study those which they cannot?

I don't need a study to tell me the brains of boxers, MMA fighters, and NFL middle linebackers have endured more trauma than that of a pharmacist at Wal-Mart. Ever heard Joe Frazier talk? You think Muhammed Ali has been affected?

In fact, I read more and more that it's not concussions that are the problem. It's the constant head-banging on basic plays that leads to the issues. It's the jabs that pile up, not the round-house shots that drop you to the floor.

Steve Young had a ton of concussions just like Troy. Young has a law degree and is as salient as they come. Roger Staubach had concussions, then built a billion-dollar real estate business.

The question is, why are some people more susceptible to issues later on than others? Is the depression after a career the result of brain issues, or is it because of the loss of spotlight, adjustment to a normal life, cessation of PEDs, or an underlying cause that was present all along? No consideration is being given to the possibility that this is environmental more than it is because of these CTE indicators.

It also seems that there is a major money-grab from former players that have gone through all their money. Cynical, but true in many instances.

These studies are being conducted with a narrative conclusion seemingly already in hand. The scientific method doesn't require to prove a finding, it says to disprove a finding. That isn't being done here.

 

[Hoofbite]

I don't need a study to tell me the brains of boxers, MMA fighters, and NFL middle linebackers have endured more trauma than that of a pharmacist at Wal-Mart. Ever heard Joe Frazier talk? You think Muhammed Ali has been affected?

In fact, I read more and more that it's not concussions that are the problem. It's the constant head-banging on basic plays that leads to the issues. It's the jabs that pile up, not the round-house shots that drop you to the floor.

Steve Young had a ton of concussions just like Troy. Young has a law degree and is as salient as they come. Roger Staubach had concussions, then built a billion-dollar real estate business.

I'm not sure anyone has ever suggested that football-related brain injuries universally result in CTE. Smoking doesn't universally cause cancer. Drinking doesn't universally result in liver failure. Care to take a crack at disconnecting those two outcomes from those two behaviors just because a couple of random people didn't develop said outcomes. The fact that a specific action doesn't guarantee a specific outcome in every instance doesn't mean that we shouldn't study the relationship in order to better understand how we can minimize the risk.

The question is, why are some people more susceptible to issues later on than others? Is the depression after a career the result of brain issues, or is it because of the loss of spotlight, adjustment to a normal life, cessation of PEDs, or an underlying cause that was present all along? No consideration is being given to the possibility that this is environmental more than it is because of these CTE indicators.

That's because some of these environmental factors are not unique to the NFL and therefore there's no rational basis to form a hypothesis around them.

• Underlying condition: Why would anyone think that football players are disproportionately effected by an underlying condition (one that is unrelated to the sport) to an extent that is any greater than what we would observe in the general population?
• Loss of spotlight: Yeah, that might be worth a little thought provided that athletes from other sports or even run of the mill fallen celebrities were developing the symptoms associated with CTE at a similar rate as NFL players are.
• Cessation of PEDs: Again, plenty of examples to compare to. Other professional sports or even olympians. Is there any population that takes more PEDs than bodybuilders, both in quantity and variety?

You have to have some basis on which to form your hypothesis. Throwing out random ideas without any sort of foundation isn't a great way to start a scientific investigation. Neither is just accepting that something is true regardless of how blatantly obvious observations may be. This doesn't even being to acknowledge that you can't even study things like an unknown mystery diagnosis because you can't even form a respectable hypothesis in the first place.

These studies are being conducted with a narrative conclusion seemingly already in hand.

That "narrative" is called a hypothesis and it's based on the observational data that is presently available. Likely based on the very same data (Joe Frazier and Ali) that you say makes a study unnecessary. Thankfully the scientific community only uses this data as a starting point, whereas you seem to view it as a foregone conclusion.

The scientific method doesn't require to prove a finding, it says to disprove a finding. That isn't being done here.

This is philosophical statement about the nature of scientific method, not a descriptor of how the scientific method is carried out. What is being done here is exactly what you would expect according to the scientific method. More or less, develop a hypothesis and then test it.

The scientific method doesn't require something to be proven because it can't prove anything. The presence of positive findings does not prove a hypothesis because there could be additional factors that the hypothesis didn't include. It's a general acknowledgement that we don't have a 100% understanding of anything and therefore something can never be proven.

Conversely, it doesn't say to disprove anything. While a hypothesis must have a set of circumstances in which it is untrue, there is no requirement that the scientific method only be used in the name of refutation. The absence of positive findings MUST mean there are alternative explanation and consequently the hypothesis is incorrect. The scientific method can never prove a hypothesis but it can disprove a hypothesis.

 

[Longboysfan]

I would like a balanced study.

Take the brain of an average person - Like BrainPaint.
Open him up and check his brain against that of an NFL player.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Science isn't science anymore.

The NFL is wrong to try to manipulate the study, but by the same token, the NFL knows the study won't be conducted in a scientific manner. These days, such studies are always highly politically motivated.

Man-made global warming has to be true, or the research grants (and celebrity) dry up. Same with this. CTE study promises to be a highly lucrative and high-profile for those that win the grants to conduct it. To not find damaging evidence simply will not do if you want the cash to keep flowing.

It's sad. So much meaningful knowledge and progress is prevented as a result.

Global warming is true. What's not true is that man doesn't cause it and that man "IS THE" causes of it. Global warming happens whether people are here or not. It's a natural event that has occurred over and over for millions of years. What is also true is that man DOES in fact influence the rate within which global warming occurs. Billions of drivers on the road and tons of companies dumping pollutants into the water / air also speed up global warming.

Are you a conspiracy theorist? Your comment definitely comes off as one.

 

[erod]

Global warming is true. What's not true is that man doesn't cause it and that man "IS THE" causes of it. Global warming happens whether people are here or not. It's a natural event that has occurred over and over for millions of years. What is also true is that man DOES in fact influence the rate within which global warming occurs. Billions of drivers on the road and tons of companies dumping pollutants into the water / air also speed up global warming.

Are you a conspiracy theorist? Your comment definitely comes off as one.

My "conspiracy theory" is that science today is so politically motivated by the modern academician mentality that it doesn't get vetted and practiced in th the same manner anymore.

To your example, global warming is obviously a real phenomenon, but the cause(s) and impact are wildly speculative. And yet, a huge swath of the scientific community states their desired opinions as fact in order to promote a political or financial agenda. Science once required more definitive proof before it accepted anything as factual.

In this case, the cause, effect, and result of CTE is very much worth studying. There's something to it. However, some players seem completely immune to its consequences, while others are crippled by it. Why? Is this just hits to the head? Steroids or other PEDs? Recreational drugs? Sociological or psychological issues? Bipolarity? Transitional issues into everyday life?

We've leaped into conclusions way too fast on this.

 

[YosemiteSam]

My "conspiracy theory" is that science today is so politically motivated by the modern academician mentality that it doesn't get vetted and practiced in th the same manner anymore.

To your example, global warming is obviously a real phenomenon, but the cause(s) and impact are wildly speculative. And yet, a huge swath of the scientific community states their desired opinions as fact in order to promote a political or financial agenda. Science once required more definitive proof before it accepted anything as factual.

In this case, the cause, effect, and result of CTE is very much worth studying. There's something to it. However, some players seem completely immune to its consequences, while others are crippled by it. Why? Is this just hits to the head? Steroids or other PEDs? Recreational drugs? Sociological or psychological issues? Bipolarity? Transitional issues into everyday life?

We've leaped into conclusions way too fast on this.

You should re-evaluate your views of the scientific community in general. It's not the academic scientist doing this. It's the corporate or ones paid by corporations (like the NFL, including academic scientist sometimes) that do it and do not release their report to be peer review through a scientific journal. I would suggest reading this:

PUBLISHING YOUR WORK IN A JOURNAL: UNDERSTANDING THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

An excerpt is:

Manuscripts have been subjected to the peer review process prior to publication for over 300 years. Currently, the peer review process is used by almost all scientific journals, and The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy is no exception. Scholarly publication is the means by which new work is communicated and peer review is an important part of this process. Peer review is a vital part of the quality control mechanism that is used to determine what is published, and what is not.

​

Now, that said. The question you must ask is "Was this a private report or was it peer reviewed in a scientific journal?" A peer review is open to the masses and all data including empirical evidence is peer reviewed by the best and smartest people in their field. Most companies that provide this type of report as proof is provided by by them as they paid to have created and do not include empirical evidence or have the report peer reviewed.